stage_get_layouts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get all available stage layouts' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, returns a list or structured data, includes pagination, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Get all available stage layouts') and contains no unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations, it should ideally mention the return format (list of layouts? structured data?), any authentication requirements, or system constraints. The description is adequate for the simplest case but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, which is correct. It adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with zero parameters, the baseline is appropriately high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all available stage layouts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'stage_get_layout_map' or 'stage_get_screen_layout' by focusing on layouts in general rather than specific layout-related data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools beyond the 'stage_' prefix.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the 'stage_' category (like stage_get_layout_map, stage_get_screen_layout), there's no indication of when this general layout retrieval is preferred over more specific queries. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.